Eric van der Vlist wrote:
in the action, considering that since I want to replace the whole instance by nothing else but
<form> <document-id>foo</document-id> <action/> </form>
that would be easier like that than using XUpdate.
Isn't it the case?
No, not yet. We have a proposal hanging on orbeon-development that includes a slight rework of the way inputs and outputs of pipelines used by the PFC are defined and behave, which should bring much needed consistency (while still keeping backward compatibility).
Or, maybe I have chosen the wrong output (data) and should have used the
instance output instead (if it's available in an action, I haven't
tested yet)?
Definitely, when this is working, the output name should be "instance", which is consistent with the other PFC pipelines. Right now, I am not very happy with this "data" naming, and we suggest in the proposal mentioned above to use explicit names instead, like "instance", "model", etc.
I think that what I do not figure out yet is the PFC flow when you add actions (and results).
At the moment the action only has a "data" output. It is only usable from XUpdate code in the PFC.
The diagrams in http://www.orbeon.com/ois/doc/reference-controller#combinations are very helpful when there is no action involved and I think that it would be nice if you could show at which point actions and results are plugged and which input and outputs are available for action pipelines!
Will do that once the new proposal is "approved" and implemented!
-Erik
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl _______________________________________________ orbeon-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/orbeon-user
